Obama, Obama, Obama

[DaronWestbrooke]

Just throwing this out there, but I think we are targeting the wrong field. Obama's strong showing was because he pulled in a lot and I mean a LOT of college students and disgruntled independents with a similar anti-war and change message.

He has the momentum and I believe a lot of our main target demographic sees that as where the momentum is and the greatest chance to create change and knock down the Bush/Clinton empire. Hell, I'm even starting to consider this the better train to jump on.

Thoughts or strategy?

[tsetsefly]

the rpoblem is we also have the republican tag do deal with, yes we could get more college students but we will not win if we dont get mainstream old voters..

[Loltastic]

It should be stressed that Obama is all talk, no walk. He makes pretty speeches but that's where it ends.

He voted for the extension of the Patriot Act.

He claims to be fervently anti-war since 2002, yet his senatorial record indicates little of this. Obama has voted for funding on many different occasions for the war. He voted against Kerry's withdrawal amendment. He's introduced or cowritten more than 100 billls during his tenure, and not one of them dealt with Iraq. His campaign withdrawal plan is about on par with Bush's withdrawal plan.

Obama talks about hope and change, but have we seen it?

[DAFTEK]

I will move to Australia the day he becomes president! I will put Ron Paul on my ballot and hope i will never have to hear a president preach like Dr.King every time i turn on the news! He is no Dr.King but he is sure playing one threw his speeches and playing the race card very cleverly! We are doomed in the end!

[itshappening]

Obama will be an establishment shill, talks a good game but little else. if he ever got the presidency he will let down his supporters just like Bush has done (no nation building, no policing of the world ), except he will do it with a more cogenial smile

[DaronWestbrooke]

Obama will be an establishment shill, talks a good game but little else.

This is one problem I have talking to my friends who like Obama, they say Paul is far more establishment, being in Congress for as long as he has. They look at Obama as the real outsider.

[itshappening]

This is one problem I have talking to my friends who like Obama, they say Paul is far more establishment, being in Congress for as long as he has. They look at Obama as the real outsider.

Paul hasa consistant record though, as soon as Obama addressed 'the state of the nation' he will turn into a war hawk neocon

[fireworks_god]

Obama and McCain/Thompson are our biggest threats in our bid for the White House.

We can dismantle them both and distribute them acrossed the four corners of the Earth, but we have to do it! :)

[S3eker]

The media is a little stupid when it comes to the domocratic caucus and Iowa. First, remember how he was selected. There was a lot of team strategy going on when people grouped together to support their candidates. Obama obsorbed some of the other candidates people after the first group under 15% had lost in the precinct.

Iowa doesn't meen squat for the Democrats. If you listened to Obama's speech, you would agree it sounded like he already won. I believe this will play negatively in the upcoming weeks.

[Rangeley]

Thats exactly what I noted in my latest topic. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=74776) The Iraq War issue is not a big draw when Obama also opposes it. I posted a strategy in the topic.

[Talldude1412]

This is one problem I have talking to my friends who like Obama, they say Paul is far more establishment, being in Congress for as long as he has. They look at Obama as the real outsider.

Exactly, how do they know he won't be corrupted by it? He's barely even hung up his coat in his senate office. Dr. Paul has been around for 30 years and still has the same principles and integrity he did when he entered. I really don't get Obama supporters.... well I do, they are unhappy and want change, Obama is the charismatic democrat. Thats two changes many people are eager to see in the white house.

[itshappening]

Obama will preach anti-war and 'change' message until the very minute he's elected, then he'll change himself and tell his supporters it's his job to spread democracy to the oppressed peoples in the world

[Loltastic]

Exactly, how do they know he won't be corrupted by it? He's barely even hung up his coat in his senate office. Dr. Paul has been around for 30 years and still has the same principles and integrity he did when he entered. I really don't get Obama supporters.... well I do, they are unhappy and want change, Obama is the charismatic democrat. Thats two changes many people are eager to see in the white house.

Too bad, he hasn't actually done anything, just makes some speeches that make you feel good inside. He's the democratic version of Huckabee (slightly less retarded).

[DaronWestbrooke]

Exactly, how do they know he won't be corrupted by it? He's barely even hung up his coat in his senate office. Dr. Paul has been around for 30 years and still has the same principles and integrity he did when he entered. I really don't get Obama supporters.... well I do, they are unhappy and want change, Obama is the charismatic democrat. Thats two changes many people are eager to see in the white house.

That's not how they see it but that is good. Normally what I hear is that he is just pandering to the anti-establishment types while still acting like any other insider behind the scenes (they point to pork spending as an example, they say even though he votes against it, he is just entrenched enough to know how to get it passed while still appearing clean.)

[Ryphal]

I will move to Australia the day he becomes president! I will put Ron Paul on my ballot and hope i will never have to hear a president preach like Dr.King every time i turn on the news! He is no Dr.King but he is sure playing one threw his speeches and playing the race card very cleverly! We are doomed in the end!

Thank you, I thought I was the only one that thought that when I saw his speech last night.

But yeah, he's a real threat to RP since he got like 41% or something of Independent voters that came out last night as well as 57% of those 17-29. And yeah, he's all hot air with his "Change" motto and that's the only reason people vote for him. And you know what, that's all he needs to win him the nomination, because the majority of people aren't gunna hold him to it. You need only look to Bush and the fact he's not being impeached that people just go with the flow and don't hold leaders accountable.

[itshappening]

both he and Edwards are charismatic Democrats but if they got in office they would be as pro-war and establishment as someone like Bush. make no mistake

[RoyalTenenbaum]

He talks about being a uniter, and a candidate to move everybody beyond the issues that divide us. In substance, he's a reliable liberal/democrat vote. It's like he says "Let's unite - let's get beyond these differences - let's do it by all becoming democrats!" He hasn't demanded a single concession from people in his own party. It would be Republicans/conservatives/constitutionalists who would have to make all the concessions.

When Obama says let's unite, he means, LET'S ALL BECOME DEMOCRATS.

He says it well, but that's all he says.

I know that Dr. Paul is in fact a uniter, and I know it mostly from reading this message board. I have seen, for example, people with completely different views on abortion who have at least agreed on a beginning step to healing the national rift over it - return it to the states. Find me another candidate who has united people on that issue! Find me another candidate who has changed people's mind on the war, on taxation, on welfarism. Most people come to their candidates with their minds made up. Dr. Paul's campaign has actually changed minds, and brought about real unity among divergent people.

We're going to feel a strong wind that will be blown at us by the media regarding Obama, but we should be steadfast. We know what we have seen in this movement and on these boards about real unity, real changing of the discussion, real working together. Have faith in that.

[Talldude1412]

That's not how they see it but that is good. Normally what I hear is that he is just pandering to the anti-establishment types while still acting like any other insider behind the scenes (they point to pork spending as an example, they say even though he votes against it, he is just entrenched enough to know how to get it passed while still appearing clean.)

Well you have to pander when all you have are good speeches as your campaign platform.

[fireworks_god]

I really don't get Obama supporters.... well I do, they are unhappy and want change, Obama is the charismatic democrat. Thats two changes many people are eager to see in the white house.

They don't realize the proven, better alternative! Let's reach them and bring them to our side! :)

[QuesoPantera]

Just throwing this out there, but I think we are targeting the wrong field. Obama's strong showing was because he pulled in a lot and I mean a LOT of college students and disgruntled independents with a similar anti-war and change message.

He has the momentum and I believe a lot of our main target demographic sees that as where the momentum is and the greatest chance to create change and knock down the Bush/Clinton empire. Hell, I'm even starting to consider this the better train to jump on.

Thoughts or strategy?

My thought is you're crazy. I'm sorry, it is what it is. Obama will be just fine without your help, trust me. The problem with the "fringe candidate"... the "third party guy"... or the candidate for the "disenfranchised" voter, is that this crap happens. The grass always looks greener on the other side, but come on, dude, Barack will slaughter any of these Republican front-runners in a national run-off.

You want to REALLY change the country? Get Ron the nomination so he and Barack can truly deliver an honest dialog to the people this election cycle. Stick with your guns, kid, we're still growing

[fireworks_god]

Also, it'd be amazing if we were all actually talking to people who WILL vote, telling them our take on this!

The media isn't going to inform the electorate, the other candidates will NOT inform the electorate, but WE CAN, WE MUST, AND WE WILL!

Let's get everyone in this forum organized and communicating with the same people the pollsters poll and give them our perspective on EVERYTHING that is happening! If we come in with an enthuisastic, warm, friendly greeting and tell them our take on everything, we can get them to listen, and that's the first step! :cool:

[RonRules]

"
Obama and McCain/Thompson are our biggest threats in our bid for the White House. "

Thompson is no threat at all. He instills no passion and he's out of money. He wont' get much more. He just had name recognition.

There's a nice 13% for us to grab. Go to the Thompson rallies and convince his people.

[Talldude1412]

both he and Edwards are charismatic Democrats but if they got in office they would be as pro-war and establishment as someone like Bush. make no mistake

They will pull us out of Iraq (eventually) and send us right to Darfur! Or any other little country with problems. May as well be US marines fixing the world (they don't like the military much anyways) :/ . I can't believe people can't even remember the frickin 90s, Clinton has us fighting in dozens of countries.

[fireworks_god]

Thompson is a HUGE threat when all of his support goes to McCain, consolidating votes that turn sharply AGANSIT Ron Paul.

[DaronWestbrooke]

My thought is you're crazy. I'm sorry, it is what it is. Obama will be just fine without your help, trust me. The problem with the "fringe candidate"... the "third party guy"... or the candidate for the "disenfranchised" voter, is that this crap happens. The grass always looks greener on the other side, but come on, dude, Barack will slaughter any of these Republican front-runners in a national run-off.

You want to REALLY change the country? Get Ron the nomination so he and Barack can truly deliver an honest dialog to the people this election cycle. Stick with your guns, kid, we're still growing

I think you missed the entire point, we are sending our message to the wrong audience. I am watching everyone here trying to change Republicans, when the audience we want isn't looking at what Republicans are saying, they are watching Obama. We are talking to shadows. We need to start focusing on selling our message where the demographic is looking, and right now they are looking at Obama.

[fireworks_god]

But it won't happen if we reach them, like you said! :)

[fireworks_god]

I think you missed the entire point, we are sending our message to the wrong audience. I am watching everyone here trying to change Republicans, when the audience we want isn't looking at what Republicans are saying, they are watching Obama. We are talking to shadows. We need to start focusing on selling our message where the demographic is looking, and right now they are looking at Obama.

TIME IS SHORT! Not a lot of primaries allow us to pull Obama's Democratic voters into us. We are running for the REPUBLICAN nomination first! If we secure that, THEN we are much more ideally placed to strike Obama down for the inexperienced hot air ballon that he is!

[aravoth]

This is one problem I have talking to my friends who like Obama, they say Paul is far more establishment, being in Congress for as long as he has. They look at Obama as the real outsider.

Establishment? WTF are you talking about? Oh yeah Obama's pretty fucking anti-war! Never Mind the fact that he voted for every single war spending bill that showed up on the floor.

Love to see how he's going to fund all his wonderful social programs when the dollar crashes in the next 6-12 months. And it will, it's a mathematical certainty.

How the hell is Paul establishment when he does exactly the opposite.

[DaronWestbrooke]

TIME IS SHORT! Not a lot of primaries allow us to pull Obama's Democratic voters into us. We are running for the REPUBLICAN nomination first! If we secure that, THEN we are much more ideally placed to strike Obama down for the inexperienced hot air ballon that he is!

But where are the independents looking, that is what swings the votes.

[fireworks_god]

Exactly! He poses a threat to us in New Hamsphire! There is a lot of strong, reasonable, reality-backed perspective on Obama and why he is NOT the answer.

We don't need to convince ourselves! We are already fighting for Ron Paul and voting for him!

We NEED to focus our attention outwards! We NEED to be interacting with the people in New Hampshire and informing them! We don't need to PUSH our candidate onto them! Just tell them what we think, one American to the next, and then suggest why we support who we support! :)

[itshappening]

check this out from Lewrockwell.com

Obama's Speech
Posted by James Ostrowski at January 4, 2008 08:28 AM

The only specific in it is his promise to ruin the health care system.

All the rest is utterly meaningless nonsense.

Can some Obama supporter send me an email and explain their fascination with making government bigger?

And answer this question: since government has been growing rapidly since about 1917, and including under George Bush, how does making government bigger constitute "change"?

[Joe3113]

Just throwing this out there, but I think we are targeting the wrong field. Obama's strong showing was because he pulled in a lot and I mean a LOT of college students and disgruntled independents with a similar anti-war and change message.

He has the momentum and I believe a lot of our main target demographic sees that as where the momentum is and the greatest chance to create change and knock down the Bush/Clinton empire. Hell, I'm even starting to consider this the better train to jump on.

Thoughts or strategy?

I've got a strategy:

1. You leave the forums

[quantized]

I've got a strategy:

1. You leave the forums

LOL

[DrNoZone]

Ok, so how does a libertarian/Constitutionalist candidate win over the supporters of a socialist?

[SlapItHigh]

It should be stressed that Obama is all talk, no walk. He makes pretty speeches but that's where it ends.

He voted for the extension of the Patriot Act.

He claims to be fervently anti-war since 2002, yet his senatorial record indicates little of this. Obama has voted for funding on many different occasions for the war. He voted against Kerry's withdrawal amendment. He's introduced or cowritten more than 100 billls during his tenure, and not one of them dealt with Iraq. His campaign withdrawal plan is about on par with Bush's withdrawal plan.

Obama talks about hope and change, but have we seen it?


QFT

[LFOD]

And when Clinton smashes the field in NH are you going to say we need to appeal to the Clinton voter?

[Joe3113]

It should be stressed that Obama is all talk, no walk. He makes pretty speeches but that's where it ends.

He voted for the extension of the Patriot Act.

He claims to be fervently anti-war since 2002, yet his senatorial record indicates little of this. Obama has voted for funding on many different occasions for the war. He voted against Kerry's withdrawal amendment. He's introduced or cowritten more than 100 billls during his tenure, and not one of them dealt with Iraq. His campaign withdrawal plan is about on par with Bush's withdrawal plan.

Obama talks about hope and change, but have we seen it?


-----------------------------

Moderator: "Senator Obama. What would you do about the inflation tax?"

Obama: "We need a new kind of politics."

Moderator: "ummm....ok. What would you do to reduce the national debt?"

Obama: "We need a new kind of politics."

Moderator: "wtf? ......ok........how can you justify the United States being the world's policeman?"

Obama: "We need a new kind of pol....." (mod interrupts)

Moderator: "O for f*cks sake!!!"

[LFOD]

-----------------------------

Moderator: "Senator Obama. What would you do about the inflation tax?"

Obama: "We need a new kind of politics."

Moderator: "ummm....ok. What would you do to reduce the national debt?"

Obama: "We need a new kind of politics."

Moderator: "wtf? ......ok........how can you justify the United States being the world's policeman?"

Obama: "We need a new kind of pol....." (mod interrupts)

Moderator: "O for f*cks sake!!!"

LOL - yep. That's pretty much it. I've thought all along his entire shtick is running on the speech he gave at the '04 Dem. Convention.

I thought his speech last night was fluff and totally affected in trying to sound like MLK. The commentators were quick to pronounce it "soaring" but I don't think I'm the only one it didn't play well with.

[gang]

In a German forum I found this article from Israel's Haaretz about Obama.
Maybe you can use it to persuade others, that he's not the "change" he promises to be.


Obama supports Israel. Period.

Barack Obama's big speech on Israel is now over, and as expected, the candidate made no secret of his support and dedication to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. "My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.

Iran

"The kinds of communications that he would engage in and the pressure he envisions on Iran may differ in some respect from the other candidates," an adviser to Barack Obama told the NY Sun yesterday. And in the speech he made today, in Chicago, Obama showed his cards. He was clear, but not as tough as Edwards' "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons" or Clinton's "we cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."

Here's what Obama said: "The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

As I wrote for Slate last week, I don't believe there's a big difference between Democrats and Republicans in regards to Iran-policy. Nevertheless, Obama today sounded somewhat different, more cautious, than the 2004 Obama I quoted at the end of that Slate piece: "In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in ... On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran."

Speech

On engaging Iran: "We need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy. This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War."

On stopping Iran: "Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and developing our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down."

On Iraq and Israel: "A consequence of the Administration's failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran's strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region; and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril."

On American aid to Israel: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs."

On diplomacy: "Our job is to do more than lay out another road map."

On Israel's security: "Our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region. That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point."

On the Palestinian leadership: "We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians in Mecca last month."

On U.S. mediation: "We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States" - or is that about Syria?

Rivals

Is he really as friendly to Israel as any other candidate? Yesterday, writing about Clinton and Edwards, I mentioned the fact that "the constant interest in, and the open sympathy for, Israeli affairs that is required of all important elected officials in the most Jewish of states in the U.S. has had its effect on" Clinton and Giuliani, The Israel Factor favorites. Obama doesn't have this advantage. He isn't from New York and, more importantly, is relatively new to the public sphere.

Money

It is no secret that Jewish money plays a big role in the Democratic Party. "They don't have the number [of voters], but have the means to get the voters," a prominent Democratic operative told me last week. That's why I told the told the NY Sun that "I don't think his real motive is to win votes. It's, of course, Jewish money." Will he get it? Here's one clue. Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida is going to co-chair Barack Obama's White House drive in the state. And why would Wexler do such thing? Because "I have spoken with Barack to discuss the dangers facing our ally Israel, and I am convinced there will be no stronger supporter of Israel than President Obama", his statement says. It "appears as Obama plans a big day on March 25 of fundraising in Florida, where he will be looking for help from the Jewish Democratic donor community", writes Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times today.

Conclusion

So, did Obama achieve his goal? Sorry, but I will have to repeat here what I wrote just a week ago. It is as true today as it was then: "After talking to people about him all week, I can tell you this: They very much want to be persuaded that Obama should win their backing, as they all understand the excitement and enthusiasm surrounding his candidacy and the importance of Obama adding his voice to the camp of Israel supporters. With such an attitude, it is relatively easy to be convinced."


Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=832667&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1)

[RM918]

What change! Obama hasn't been in the government nearly as long, but everything he's done hasn't been for 'change'. It's been for Standard Democratic Agenda 1A. He goes ON and ON about change, but he offers /nothing/ new except a fresh face!